Florida v. Jardines

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of the respondent.

Brief filed: 07/09/2012

Documents

Florida v. Jardines

United States Supreme Court; Case No. 11-564

Prior Decision

Decision below 73 So.3d 34 (Fla. 2011).

Argument(s)

Acting on a tip, police conducted a warrantless “canine sniff” with a drug detection dog of the front door of the defendant’s residence and obtained a search warrant based on the dog’s alert. Marijuana was found growing in the defendant’s home. The Florida Supreme Court held that the “sniff test” was itself a search requiring probable cause. Amici argue that persons have a heightened expectation of privacy in their homes and that dog sniffs are highly intrusive, since the sniff can reveal much more than the mere presence or absence of contraband and is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Absent exigent circumstances, such a suspicionless search of a home is inherently unreasonable. Further, allowing suspicionless dog sniffs of houses would permit indiscriminate sweeps of residential neighborhoods, a practice some law enforcement officials have already begun to employ.

Coronavirus Resources

NACDL to Focus on Service and Support for Members, Clients, and Community Throughout Virus Emergency

Learn More

Author(s)

Danielle Spinelli, et al., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; Jonathan D. Hacker, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC; Norman L. Reimer and Mason C. Clutter, NACDL, Washington, DC.